Search Results

Search found 9 results on 1 pages for 'sully'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Avatar (spoiler alert!)

    - by Dave Yasko
    This past weekend we finally saw “Avatar,” or as I like to call it “Dances with Smurfs.”  It was rather light on the story, heavy on the message, and incredibly well done.  The eye for detail is what blew me away, especially the visual distortion (presumably due to density) when the two atmospheres mixed.  The only thing I thought they might have missed was why so many (presumably) mammals had 6 appendages (4 arms + 2 legs) and breathed through passages near their clavicles, but the Na’vi (sp?) didn’t have/do either.  Also, James Cameron just loves to telegraph upcoming events: Riding the big red bird thing has only happened 5 times before – Sully is on the job.  The tree is going to download dying Ripley to her avatar body – Sully is going to do that too.  I’ve seen worse foreshadowing, but not in a long time. I give it 4 Papa Smurfs out of 5.

    Read the article

  • DirectX 9.0c and C++ GUI

    - by SullY
    Well, I'm trying to code a gui for my engine, but I've got some problems. I know how to make a UI overlay but buttons are still black magic for me. Anything I tried was to compilcated ( if it goes big ). To Example I tried to look if the mouse position is the same as the Pixel that is showing the button. But If I use some bigger areas it's getting to complicated. Now I'm searching for a Tutorial how to implement your own gui. I'm really confused about it. Well I hope you have/ know some good tutorials. By the way, I took a look at the DXUTSample, but it's to big to get overview.

    Read the article

  • Player Movement DirectX

    - by SullY
    I'm reading on a Book that's about Gamedevelopment with C++ and DirectX 9. There is something that interrests me: It says that playermovements are increasing with the power of the CPU. Becouse a faster CPU will move the player with every frame ( better CPU = better FPS ) To bypass it, it says you have just to multiplicate time*movementfactor . I'd like to know is there an another way to bypass it ?

    Read the article

  • Does Windows 8 still support DirectX 9?

    - by SullY
    Is Windows 8 supporting DirectX 9? Because I was looking through some samples written in C++ and DirectX 9 made for Windows 8. It wasn't that, like I know it ( look here http://directxtutorial.com/Lesson.aspx?lessonid=111-4-2 ). E.g. Inizialising DirectX with COM: ComPtr<ID3D11Device1> dev; ComPtr<ID3D11DeviceContext1> devcon; It's just weird because I know it with the old way: ID3D11Device *dev; ID3D11DeviceContext *devcon; ( I hope you understand what I want to tell ) I hope it hasn't change completely due the released their new OS.

    Read the article

  • Confusing Callbacks

    - by SullY
    I'm trying to programm now a "game", and started with the EmptyProject that's provided by the DirectX SDK. The problem is that the Callbacks are confusing me. Can please someone explain me? Edit: DXUTSetCallbackD3D9DeviceAcceptable( IsD3D9DeviceAcceptable ); // not sure but I think that's the caps? DXUTSetCallbackD3D9DeviceLost( OnD3D9LostDevice ); DXUTSetCallbackDeviceChanging( ModifyDeviceSettings ); DXUTSetCallbackFrameMove( OnFrameMove );

    Read the article

  • Distribution upgrade (12.04 -> 14.04 LTS) halted while unpacking/installing packages

    - by Bob Sully
    As the title states...it just stopped unpacking/installing. "Preparing to unpack .../lirc_0.9.0-0ubuntu5_amd64.deb ..." then stopped in its tracks. Everything else is still running. The update manager process is still alive; if I hit ctrl-c, it gives me the warning message about leaving the system in a broken state. Also, if I run top, there is a process called "trusty" which is still running. I have NOT killed either process. lsb_release -a gives: LSB Version: core-2.0-amd64:core-2.0-noarch:core-3.0-amd64:core-3.0-noarch:core-3.1-amd64:core-3.1-noarch:core-3.2-amd64:core-3.2-noarch:core-4.0-amd64:core-4.0-noarch Distributor ID: Ubuntu Description: Ubuntu 14.04.1 LTS Release: 14.04 Codename: trusty I assume that if I try to restart update-manager, I won't be offered the option to upgrade again. Anyone have a way I can get the update-manager/dist-upgrade process to simply finish the upgrade? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why it may be good to be confused: Mary Lo Verde’s Motivational Discussion at Oracle

    - by user769227
    Why it may be good to be confused: Mary Lo Verde’s Motivational Discussion at Oracle by Olivia O'Connell Last week, we were treated to a call with Mary LoVerde, a renowned Life-Balance and Motivational Speaker. This was one of many events organized by Oracle Women’s Leadership (OWL). Mary made some major changes to her life when she decided to free herself of material positions and take each day as it came. Her life balance strategies have led her from working with NASA to appearing on Oprah. Mary’s MO is “cold turkey is better than dead duck!”, in other words, knowing when to quit. It is a surprising concept that flies in the face of the “winners don’t quit” notion and focuses on how we limit our capabilities and satisfaction levels by doing something that we don’t feel passionately about. Her arguments about quitting were based on the conception that ‘“it” is in the way of you getting what you really want’ and that ‘quitting makes things easier in the long run’. Of course, it is often difficult to quit, and though we know that things would be better if we did quit certain negative things in our lives, we are often ashamed to do so. A second topic centred on the perception of Confusion Endurance. Confusion Endurance is based around the idea that it is often good to not know exactly what you are doing and that it is okay to admit you don’t know something when others ask you; essentially, that humility can be a good thing. This concept was supposed to have to Leonardo Da Vinci, because he apparently found liberation in not knowing. Mary says, this allows us to “thrive in the tension of not knowing to unleash our creative potential” An anecdote about an interviewee at NASA was used to portray how admitting you don’t know can be a positive thing. When NASA asked the candidate a question with no obvious answer and he replied “I don’t know”, the candidate thought he had failed the interview; actually, the interviewers were impressed with his ability to admit he did not know. If the interviewee had guessed the answer in a real-life situation, it could have cost the lives of fellow astronauts. The highlight of the webinar for me? Mary told how she had a conversation with Capt. Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger who recalled the US Airways Flight 1549 / Miracle on the Hudson incident. After making its descent and finally coming to rest in the Hudson after falling 3,060 feet in 90 seconds, Sully and his co-pilot both turned to each other and said “well...that wasn’t as bad as we thought”. Confusion Endurance at its finest! Her discussion certainly gave food for thought, although personally, I was inclined to take some of it with a pinch of salt. Mary Lo Verde is the author of The Invitation, and you can visit her website and view her other publications at www.maryloverde.com. For details on the Professional Business Women of California visit: http://www.pbwc.org/

    Read the article

  • UDP blocked by Windows XP Firewall when sending to local machine

    - by user36367
    I work for a software development company but the issue doesn't seem to be programming-related. Here is my setup: Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3, all updated Program that sends UDP datagrams Program that receives UDP datagrams Windows Firewall set to allow inbound UDP datagrams on a specific port (Scope: Subnet) If I send a UDP datagram on any port to other, similar machines, it goes through. If I send the UDP datagram to the same computer running the program that sends (whether using broadcast, localhost IP or the specific IP of the machine), the receiver program gets nothing. I've traced the problem down to the Windows XP Firewall, as Windows 7 does not have this problem (and I do not wish to sully my hands with Vista). If the exception I create for that UDP port in the WinXP firewall is set for a Scope of Subnet the datagram is blocked, but if I set it to All Computers or specifically enter my network settings (192.168.2.161 or 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0) it works fine. Using different UDP ports makes no difference. I've tried different programs to reproduce this problem (ServerTalk to send and either IP Port Spy or PortPeeker to receive) to make sure it's not our code that's the issue, and those programs' datagrams were blocked as well. Also, that computer only has one network interface, so there are no additional network weirdness. I receive my IP from a DHCP server, so this is a straightforward setup. Given that it doesn't happen in Windows 7 I must assume it's a defect in the Windows XP Firewall, but I'd think someone else would have encountered this problem before. Has anyone encountered anything like this? Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • UDP blocked by Windows XP Firewall when sending to local machine

    - by user36367
    Hi there, I work for a software development company but the issue doesn't seem to be programming-related. Here is my setup: - Windows XP Professional with Service Pack 3, all updated - Program that sends UDP datagrams - Program that receives UDP datagrams - Windows Firewall set to allow inbound UDP datagrams on a specific port (Scope: Subnet) If I send a UDP datagram on any port to other, similar machines, it goes through. If I send the UDP datagram to the same computer running the program that sends (whether using broadcast, localhost IP or the specific IP of the machine), the receiver program gets nothing. I've traced the problem down to the Windows XP Firewall, as Windows 7 does not have this problem (and I do not wish to sully my hands with Vista). If the exception I create for that UDP port in the WinXP firewall is set for a Scope of Subnet the datagram is blocked, but if I set it to All Computers or specifically enter my network settings (192.168.2.161 or 192.168.2.0/255.255.255.0) it works fine. Using different UDP ports makes no difference. I've tried different programs to reproduce this problem (ServerTalk to send and either IP Port Spy or PortPeeker to receive) to make sure it's not our code that's the issue, and those programs' datagrams were blocked as well. Also, that computer only has one network interface, so there are no additional network weirdness. I receive my IP from a DHCP server, so this is a straightforward setup. Given that it doesn't happen in Windows 7 I must assume it's a defect in the Windows XP Firewall, but I'd think someone else would have encountered this problem before. Has anyone encountered anything like this? Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

1